The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses"a problem anyway?)

[George Bonser]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mtinka at globaltransit.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:06 AM
> To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Cc: George Bonser
> Subject: Re: The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer
> addresses"a problem anyway?)
> 
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010 12:50:54 am George Bonser wrote:
> 
> > What do you mean "were"?  If you own Brocade/Foundry  SuperX units
> and
> > want to run v6 layer 3 you need to buy  special blades AND pay a
> > premium license fee. Any  networks unlucky enough to have purchased
> > any of that  kit over the past few years are suddenly feeling this
> > burning sensation on their seat if they are considering
> >  v6 migration.
> 
> Those folk should have known better when purchasing kit, then.
> 
> We won't buy kit or code from vendors that won't (have plans
> to) support IPv6.

Well, someone buying the stuff a few years ago as a layer2 switch and
then deciding to go Layer 3 wouldn't have had a problem with v4. It
would have bitten them only when they went to v6 and then they would
discover the hardware and premium license requirement.  To be fair, I
believe it requires a premium license for anything other than base layer
3 even with v4.  But the hardware requirement surprised me when I read
it on a different list.

This is just one more example (out of many) of the things that are
holding back v6 adoption and deployment.  It isn't the rolling out of v6
per se that is the problem.  It is the lack of support tools (DNS
management is one example) and vendor oddities that are adding
additional barriers to networks who see the writing on the wall but have
internal operational or financial barriers.  This isn't going to change
until people globally think of v6 as the standard and not some
"optional" requirement. 

George